Obama’s Middle East policy is in flames. Literally, at multiple U.S. diplomatic locations which are sovereign U.S. territory. The latest is the storming of the Embassy in Yemen, which is ongoing as of this writing.

Journalism also is in flames. It’s back to 2008, with the media openly siding with Obama and colluding to damage Romney.

It’s rare that we get to see how the supposedly top tier journalists act when not on camera. Yesterday we got a glimpse similar, in many ways, to the side of Obama we saw when his bitter clingers comment, insult to Bibi Netanyahu, and promise to Russia to be flexible were caught on open mics. For a brief few seconds, the curtain was pulled back.

During the Romney press conference, I sensed something was very wrong:

Sure enough, after the press conference The Right Scoop posted an open-mic audio of journalists (one of whom was believed to be from CBS) coordinating their questions down to the specific wording so that no matter on whom Romney called, the question they wanted asked would get asked precisely as they wanted it. [Update — it was CBS and NPR reporters voices.] And that question was one framed to damage Romney politically, to put spin on his prior statements, to create news instead of reporting on it.

It all was part of a group effort, which I documented in part as it was happening, to shift the focus from the death of a U.S. Ambassador on a day when all the warning signs of trouble were in place but the U.S. government did little if anything to beef up security.

It was a day on which the media could have been reporting facts as to the absentee President, the failure to heed the warnings and protect our diplomats, the failure of Muslim outreach, in fact, the failure of U.S. Mideast policy since the Arab Spring.

But no, all the media wanted to talk about was their own opinions as to how badly Romney supposedly screwed up, with quotes from unnamed former Republican sources as the excuse for reporting it as news. This was opinion journalism at its worst, a clear attempt to frame the narrative to help a favored candidate presented as fact reporting.

And they were mighty smug in their knowledge that there wasn’t a lot anyone could do about it, particularly when they moved in a group.

I asked two of the participants in this group effort, Chuck Todd and David Gregory, if it was common for journalists to coordinate questions. They never responded, which I can’t say surprised me.

But Greg Sargent of WaPo, former JournoList and conduit for Democratic talking points, took great umbrage at my question:

(For some of my background with Sargent, see this Twitter exchange. He’s apparently upset with me because I repeatedly called him out for presenting misleading information as to Sharron Angle.)

“Ref gaming”? They are the referees? That is how some journalists like to think of themselves, merely calling balls and strikes as they see them.

The attack on Romney was not calling balls and strikes; if that were the case they merely would have reported what he said, and let the public reach a conclusion and allowed the politicians to fight it out. No, the attempt to insulate Obama by shifting the focus to Romney was an attempt to shape public opinion, not to report facts.

The Middle East is in flames, and so is journalism at mainstream entities like NBC News and WaPo.

All they want is to get Obama re-elected, and they don’t care if they destroy what’s left of their profession to do it. Like kamikazes crashing flaming planes into aircraft carriers, these JournoLists masquerading as referees can do great damage.

Tuesday’s assaults on the U.S. Embassies in Benghazi and Cairo have injected foreign policy into the Presidential campaign, but suddenly the parsons of the press corps are offended by the debate. They’re upset that Mitt Romney had the gall to criticize the State Department for a statement that the White House itself disavowed….

His political faux pax was to offend a pundit class that wants to cede the foreign policy debate to Mr. Obama without thinking seriously about the trouble for America that is building in the world.

In 2004, John Kerry routinely attacked President Bush’s handling of Iraq when things weren’t going well in the country. And the media dutifully reported on Bush’s foreign policy blunders in Iraq. But now, instead of scrutinizing Obama’s handling of a foreign policy crisis, the media has decided that the real story in Egypt and Libya is a Mitt Romney gaffe.

What I really get is that the American media runs with a herd mentality, leans left, and yesterday collectively fell over their group think as they leaned so far left to focus on Mitt Romney and not President Obama. Yesterday, the American media beclowned itself in ways I didn’t really even think was possible, even knowing how in the tank for Barack Obama they are.

The media has been in overdrive all day feverishly writing every story from any angle that squarely puts the focus on Mitt Romney and not the fact that Obama’s foreign policy experienced a colossal failure with 2 embassies being attacked an ambassador being murdered and three other fatalities on the anniversary of the worst terrorist attack in American history. This was because Mitt Romney boldly stepped forward into the leadership void of President Obama’s silence, and issued a statement condemning violence and castigating an apology for hurt feelings of murderous extremists written by Embassy officials in Egypt in response to the uprising.

But what if Mitt Romney had waited for President Obama’s press release 24 hours after the attacks and press conference that following morning at 10:30am?

What would be the press focus? Would they focus on the tragic murders? Would they focus on the extremism being foments by groups like the Muslim Brotherhood? When politics arose, would they focus on the policy failure?

We know the answers to those rhetorical questions because outside a few exceptions like a Jake Tapper or John Dickerson the media will always play a “heads they win, tails you lose” game with Republicans, especially when their chosen candidate is both at risk and is suffering the worst foreign policy failure of his Administration, an allegedly impenetrable strength in his re-election efforts.

The first wave of stories would be how “no drama Obama” remains cool in the face of tragedy.

The second wave of stories would be how Mitt Romney was caught flat-footed because he waited so long to reply.

The third wave would be how Romney is scrambling to catch up to always fleet-footed Obama.

The fourth wave would be how each act by Romney falls short in comparison to “no drama Obama.”

The fifth wave would be how in Romney’s first test on foreign policy, he was found wanting — recycling the earlier “flat-footed”stories and how his actions/statements fall short of the grandiose Obama. A negative feedback loop always in play with Republicans.

The sixth wave of stories would be how inept the Romney campaign was to miss the golden opportunity to fill the leadership moment inherent in the cautious “no drama Obama” You can hear the quotes: ‘Can you imagine Axelrod or Carville/Clinton not pouncing on this opportunity?’ ‘Those pros never would have waited for the President to speak.’ ‘They would have jumped right in to defend America under attack.’ The embedded hypocrisy of this last wave is not lost on me but the double standard absolutely applies to Romney while “no drama Obama” relies on his re-election team in the mainstream media to carry water on his behalf.

At no point would the media have appropriately focused on the policy failure, just as they are not today. Every election the media decries the nature of campaigns not being about policy, ideas or issues. Here was a colossally big issue of policy where the media circled the wagons to cocoon the inept and failed foreign policy of President Obama. On the anniversary of 9/11 two US embassies were attacked and desecrated. One US Ambassador was murdered along with three other US personnel. In each of the countries the US was instrumental in bringing democracy and freedom to its citizens. This is a story about failed ideas of the Obama Administration leading from behind. This is a story about a policy that distances America from our greatest ally in the region Israel while embracing the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt who are openly directing the actions in Egypt. This is a story about issues going to the core of President Obama’s unwillingness to support democracy movements in enemy-state’s like Iran while tossing aside allies like the Mubarek regime in Egypt in favor of extremists like the Muslim Brotherhood.

This is a story from beginning to end fraught with every substantive issue imaginable about the foreign policy of the current President yet the media wants only to talk about press releases, timings of press releases and hope for regret from a Presidential challenger who stood tall for American values in the face of Islamic extremists.

I can not stand the MSM. I put on Morning Joe this morning, (don’t worry, it was turned off quickly), and the whole 1st segment was about how republicans were telling Joe yesterday what a mistake Romney made, in doing a press conference “15 minutes before Obama was scheduled to talk”

I’m sorry, but what I heard from Romney yesterday was alot more Presidential than Obamas lastest apology for hurting their feelings.

If Obama really felt bad, wouldn’t he have cancelled his trip to Las Vegas to campaign? How presidential is that??

I forget the identity of the LI commentor who referred to the traditional media as the “corrupt media.” That term fits well, better in my mind than MSM, in that those corrupt papers and journalist should not be deemed mainstream.

I was astounded by the events of the last three days. And astounding me takes some doing anymore.

Obama showed his back to the United States press, and there was no murmur of protest. How preventable was this loss of American life? How are these deaths the result of Obama Smart Power(tm) fecklessness? How many of the skipped intel briefings might have carried information about a 9/11 reprise?

Instead, I learned this is this brand new…but ancient and honored…rule about non-Collectivist candidates for office leaving questions of competence “at the water’s edge” when anybody overseas is in peril.

Which is always, every day. There are people worldwide who want to kill us, and not a few, and not just Muslims.

There was not a day of Obama’s run for the Senate, his time in the Senate, or his campaign for the Presidency (but I repeat myself) when he was not violating that special rule. Not. One. Day.

It strikes me that in so many ways, Obama offers the soft, fuzzy world-view that appeals to so many.

Economics is a HARD, unyielding thing, and thanks to our miserable education system very few Americans understand sound economics. Obama offers them magic as a result.

Geopolitics is a complex study, and it involves stepping up to some VERY unpleasant realities. Again, Obama offers us the alternative of a world where our enemies are just criminals who can be dealt with via law and order. Magic thinking about killers and killer regimes and ideologies.

Although that happened to Gaddafi, I want more evidence. The story might just be boasting. Yes, this is the kind of thing they would boast about.

Coroners can be corrupt. The State Department is spineless and headed by a Clinton. I hope the Stevens family will ensure that the autopsy is performed by someone who is not a creature of the administration.

What more proof do we need that the media will not do it’s job and will never be objective?

Is it too late to get new moderators for the presidential and vice presidential debates? Why do keep subjecting ourselves to this? Pointing to this open mic gaffe gives us the perfect reason for the switch. Will we have the guts to stand up to these losers and stop playing by their rules?

I don’t think it occurs to the corrupt media that in so blatantly supporting Obama they are not necessarily ensuring his victory but quite possibly their own defeat, for the sycophantic media and Obama may well sink together.

The Daily Caller published some investigative reporting about Media Matters a year or so ago. One of the things that struck me was how the guy at Media Matters portrayed Greg Sargent as an unquestioning partisan tool willing to publish almost everything they fed him. It was an unflattering portrait suggesting that even his ideologicial peers do not respect him. So why should anyone else take him seriously?

Is it possible that in the long run this will work out to Romney’s benefit? Those thinking Americans who vote, and are on the fence, cannot all be so stupid as to swallow this wholesale crap from the MSM. I still cannot believe this election is close. Either Romney wins in a blowout or obama takes it in a squeaker.

I read your Twitter exchange with Sargent, Bill. This guy claims to be objective? Good God.

“And they were mighty smug in their knowledge that there wasn’t a lot anyone could do about it”

Because they’re right, mostly. There isn’t. We can inveigh against them all we like and nothing will change, at least in the short term.

The only persons who can do something about this between now and November are those least inclined or capable to do it but at the center of the action: the people at the top of the Republican hierarchy, namely Mitt Romney. It is Mitt Romney who needs to confront the media and put them on the defensive. Only he can force the issue. Of course, fear of the media begets fear of the media, and Romney (and those around him) are afraid–not without cause. I suspect e understands that the media will turn any attacks on its legitimacy or objectivity into a sign of his panic and weakness and, worse, his contempt and/or fear of a free press.

But these risks need to be braved. And they can be. I would follow the high-minded critical model of Christopher Hitchens when he attacked and shamed the Left for its moral dereliction in the war against Islam. Hitchens turned the moral vanity of the Left against them, in a sense, reflected their shining self-righteousness back in their faces, blinding and enraging them. He made them choke on their double standard, phony compassion, sham commitment to human rights and women’s rights, their coddling of tyrants. He did this coolly and factually and they were left spluttering in rage.

Romney could have put the media on the defensive yesterday — even shamed them — by reminding them that they should be at the vanguard of defending the First Amendment.

Newt was capable of doing that int he debates. Romney may have to take some jabs at them in some manner. Maybe he should have the “would you like a pillow” line prepared for the debates.

Why they could not get neutral moderators for such important debates is beyond me. If those were the only terms accepted by Obama, that should be revealed. “We have partisan moderators because Obama would not accept a fair debate”.

After what happened yesterday, I became totally irate at those pirates under the cover of “journalists”.

Shakespeare was wrong on Henry VI. He should have thought of 21st century American “journalists” instead.

They’ve abused the public trust and their freedom under the First Amendment to destroy an individual for asking the right questions. They will “Joe the Plumber” anyone who dares to confront The One. These people are nothing but the palace guards of an absolutist king.

You guys fully approved the media’s cheer-leading of the Iraq War and then bashed them for not being subservient enough to the Pentagon propaganda machine.

Romney accused Barack “Drone Strike” Obama of being sympathetic to anti-American Islamists. For those who don’t fully immerse themselves in the right-wing puke funnel, that’s an insane allegation and the opposite of the truth.

If you have a specific failing of Obama on diplomatic security please spit it out. Until then keep in mind that the GOP wants to cut State Department security funding and that there were more attacks on US diplomatic posts under Bush.

[…] of MSM Caught In the Act On Live Mike Posted on September 13, 2012 7:05 am by Bill Quick » Middle East and Journalism in flames – Le·gal In·sur·rec·t… Still no answer. Tellingly, Jake Tapper of ABC News, one of the few who actually attempts to be a […]

Obama tasked them with making Muslims feel better about themselves, and all they’ve done is put a rover on Mars.

In Obama’s “New Beginnings Speech” in Cairo:
“and I consider it part of my responsibility as POTUS to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they may appear.”

As several have said, apologizing is policy for Obama. The initial statements may well have stood, had it not been for a strong response from citizen Romney.

The “refs” are like those is the old US/Russia Olympic basketball game where the Russians got three chances to make their last second shot. Obama gets repeated do overs, but he still never gets it right. Even still, MSM awards him the points, by disqualifying Romney.

Will moderators of the presidential debates collude on their questions? Will questions be tipped to the Obama campaign?

2. (Change of subject) If, heaven forbid, RINOs blow the election for the GOP, it will be time to discuss a new party. Meanwhile, IMHO, until the election is over, statements like The GOP is (insert pejorative) and Romney is (insert pejorative) usually do more harm than good.

Of course, it is dangerous to ignore or suppress bad news. It can be even more dangerous to overreact to it.

Their poor and their angry find meaning in lust–
Brutal lives drift on sand covered seas.
These outcasts profess they may murder the just,
Unless free men renounce liberty.

They find thrills and adventure in the heat of the crowds–
The destruction of honest men’s work.
But the rush of the riot somehow never allows,
Any questions about their goals’ worth.

We had signs of their vision of bloody redress—
False “reprisals” for offenses contrived.
But our own Socialist Masters ignored each request,
To forestall or repel crafted lies.

So our self-absorbed “leaders” claimed they were “shocked”,
To see vengeance unearned burning bright.
When our citizens were slain, and our liberty mocked,
Corrupt Media raged like whores in the night.

Yes, our “sages” went whoring on the “5 O’clock news”,
And colluded with our enemies abroad.
And our socialist papers defiled honest views,
Of those Patriots who renounced them as gods.

Our Republic is shaky, our confidence dims,
All the world now perceives us as weak.
Unless we first reject our enemies within—
Then our foreign foes win all they seek.

[…] Professor at Legal Insurrection has a great post summarizing events as they now stand: Middle East and Journalism in flames. Obama’s Middle East policy is in flames. Literally, at multiple U.S. diplomatic locations which […]

There were more terrorist assaults on US embassies under Bush. Not necessarily blaming him but how do you figure that Obama is responsible for these recent assaults? An ill-advised embassy press release doesn’t really change much.

Apparently, you missed the whole ‘overseas contingency operation’ in Libya. And the support for overthrowing Mubarak in Egypt … you know two countries who weren’t attacking our embassies during the Bush years.

Our host has posted about the media’s attempts to divert public anger about the attack onto Romney. Your question may be legitimate but it is untimely. If you are not a concern troll—no offense meant, just due diligence—, I suggest you defer your question for a time.

Nobody has mentioned that since ambassadors are usually big bundlers for the winner rewarded with plum assignments, Stevens was an obama guy. I read that Stevens was with State for 25 years but I can’t see him getting such a position unless he was in the tank for either obama or hillary. In other words, obama just threw another of his faithful under the bus. When he no longer has a use for people, down they go. It’s getting quite crowded down there.

[From Henry: Given the current state of journalism, much of this is galling, particularly the sections ‘Act Independently’ and ‘Be Accountable’ of which all twelve points are routinely and brazenly ignored on a daily basis.]

Members of the Society of Professional Journalists believe that public enlightenment is the forerunner of justice and the foundation of democracy. The duty of the journalist is to further those ends by seeking truth and providing a fair and comprehensive account of events and issues. Conscientious journalists from all media and specialties strive to serve the public with thoroughness and honesty. Professional integrity is the cornerstone of a journalist’s credibility. Members of the Society share a dedication to ethical behavior and adopt this code to declare the Society’s principles and standards of practice.

SEEK TRUTH AND REPORT IT

Journalists should be honest, fair and courageous in gathering, reporting and interpreting information.

Journalists should:

— Test the accuracy of information from all sources and exercise care to avoid inadvertent error. Deliberate distortion is never permissible.

— Diligently seek out subjects of news stories to give them the opportunity to respond to allegations of wrongdoing.

— Identify sources whenever feasible. The public is entitled to as much information as possible on sources’ reliability.

— Make certain that headlines, news teases and promotional material, photos, video, audio, graphics, sound bites and quotations do not misrepresent. They should not oversimplify or highlight incidents out of context.

— Never distort the content of news photos or video. Image enhancement for technical clarity is always permissible. Label montages and photo illustrations.

— Avoid undercover or other surreptitious methods of gathering information except when traditional open methods will not yield information vital to the public. Use of such methods should be explained as part of the story

— Never plagiarize.

— Tell the story of the diversity and magnitude of the human experience boldly, even when it is unpopular to do so.

— Examine their own cultural values and avoid imposing those values on others.

— Show compassion for those who may be affected adversely by news coverage. Use special sensitivity when dealing with children and inexperienced sources or subjects.

— Be sensitive when seeking or using interviews or photographs of those affected by tragedy or grief.

— Recognize that gathering and reporting information may cause harm or discomfort. Pursuit of the news is not a license for arrogance.

— Recognize that private people have a greater right to control information about themselves than do public officials and others who seek power, influence or attention. Only an overriding public need can justify intrusion into anyone’s privacy.

— Show good taste. Avoid pandering to lurid curiosity.

— Be cautious about identifying juvenile suspects or victims of sex crimes.

— Be judicious about naming criminal suspects before the formal filing of charges.

— Balance a criminal suspect’s fair trial rights with the public’s right to be informed.

ACT INDEPENDENTLY

Journalists should be free of obligation to any interest other than the public’s right to know.

Journalists should:

—Avoid conflicts of interest, real or perceived.

— Remain free of associations and activities that may compromise integrity or damage credibility.

— Refuse gifts, favors, fees, free travel and special treatment, and shun secondary employment, political involvement, public office and service in community organizations if they compromise journalistic integrity.

— Disclose unavoidable conflicts.

— Be vigilant and courageous about holding those with power accountable.

— Deny favored treatment to advertisers and special interests and resist their pressure to influence news coverage.

— Be wary of sources offering information for favors or money; avoid bidding for news.

BE ACCOUNTABLE

Journalists are accountable to their readers, listeners, viewers and each other.

Journalists should:

— Clarify and explain news coverage and invite dialogue with the public over journalistic conduct.

— Encourage the public to voice grievances against the news media.

— Admit mistakes and correct them promptly.

— Expose unethical practices of journalists and the news media.

— Abide by the same high standards to which they hold others.

SPJ Disclaimer:

The SPJ Code of Ethics is voluntarily embraced by thousands of journalists, regardless of place or platform, and is widely used in newsrooms and classrooms as a guide for ethical behavior. The code is intended not as a set of “rules” but as a resource for ethical decision-making. It is not — nor can it be under the First Amendment — legally enforceable.

[…] to frame the narrative to help a favored candidate presented as fact reporting.” – Professor William Jacobson, “Middle East and Journalism in Flames,” LegalInsurrection.co…Category: UncategorizedComments /*DARLEEN CLICK: Why be a taxpayer when I can be a tax spender?JOE […]